The sun. [volume] (Morris, Stevens County, Minn.) 1882-1895, 1887-12-08
PROHIBITION SUSTAINED.
The United States Supreme Court De-
cides the Kansas Prohibition Cases
in Favor Of the State.
An Exhaustive Disquisition Upon the
Right of a State to Enact and En-
force Prohibition Laws.

WASHINGTON, Dec. "a very important
| decision, and one likely to be reaching il
| it's consequences, was rendered in the United
States supreme court to-day in the Kansas
prohibition cases of Mugler against the Stat,
of Kansas and the State of Kansas against lie
bold and others The judgment Of the cour
, was announced in a long opinion by Justice
Harlan, who said:
The general question in each case is whether
the prohibition statutes of Kansas in conflict
with that clause of the fourteenth amendment,
which provides that mo state shall make or en-
force any law which shall abridge the privileges
! or immuniies OF citizens of the United States.
nor shall any state deprive any person OF life.
| liberty or property without due process of law.
| That legislation by state prohibiting the man
ufacture within her limits of Intoxicating
liquors, to be there sold or battered for general
use as beverage does not necessarily infringe
any right, privilege or immunity secured by the
constitution of the United States is made clear
by the decisions OF the court rendered before
and since the adoption of the fourteenth amend
ment. 1t is. however, commended that. although
the state NAV prohibit the manufacture of in
toxicating liquors for sale or barter within her
limits for general use as beverage, no conven-
ton or legislature has the right under
our form OF government to prohlpit
own for expert or storage, any
article of food drink not endangering or
affecting the rights of others. The argument
made in support of the first branch Of this
proposition is: That in the implied compacts
between the state and the citizen, certain rights
are reserved by the latter which are guaranteed
by thu constitutional provisions for the pro-
lection of life, liberty and property against de-
privation without due process of law and with
which the state cannot interfere: that axong
these rights ls that of manufacturing for ones
| own use either food or drink: that, while ac-
cording to the doctrines Of the commune, the
state may control the tastes, appetites, habits,
dress. food and drink of the citizen. our system
of government based upon the individuality
and intelligence of the people, does not claim to
control him except as to his conduct to others.
| leaving him the sole judge as to all that only
affects himself 1t will be observed that the
proposition and the argument made in support
of it equally concede that the right to manu-
facture drink for ones personal use Is subject to
| the condition that such manufacture does not
| endanger Or
| AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS
| If such manufacture does prejudicially affect
the rights and interests of the community. it
| follows from the rery premises stated by cOun-
sci that society has the power to protect itself
by legislation against the injurious consequences
of that business. AS WAS said in Mum vs.. Hi
nois (94 U. s., 121, while power does not exist
with the whole people to control rights that
purely and exclusively private, government may
require each citizen SO TO conduct himself and
| SO to use his own property as not unnecessarily
| to injure another. But by whom or by what au
| thority is it to be determined whether the man
ufacture Of particular articles of drink, either
| for general use or for the personal use Of the
maker. will injuriously affect the public! Power
| to determine such questions so as TO bind all
must exist somewhere, else society will be at the
mercy of the few who, regarding only their own
| appetiteS or passions may be willing to lmperi
| the peace and security of the many, provided
only they are allowed to do as they please Under
our system that power is lodged with the legis-
| latlve branch of the government. 1t belongs to
! that department to exert the police powers of
| the state. 1t must determine primarily what
| measures are appropriate or needful for the pro-
| lection of the public morals. the public health
| or the public safety. 1t does not at all follow
| from these principles that every statute enacted
ostensibly for the promotion of these ends is to
be accepted as legitimate exertion eff the police
| powers of the state. There are of necessity
| limits beyond which legislation cannot rightly
| go. As the courts must obey the constitution
! rather than the law-making department Of the
government, it must upon its responsibility de-
| termine whether in any particular case these
limits have been passed. The courts are not
bound by mere forms nor are they TO be misled
| by mere pretenses. They are at liberty-ndeed
| are under solemn outy-to look at the sub
| stance of things whenever they enter upon the
| inquiry. whether the legislature has transcribed
| the limits of its authority. If, therefore. a
| statute purporting to have been enacted to pro-
| tect the public health, the public morals or the
public safety, has no real or substantial rela-
| tions to those objects of rights secured by the
fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to
so adjudge and thereby give effect 10 the consti-
tuition. Keeping in view these principles as
governing the relations with each other of the
| judicial and legislative departments Of govern
ment 1t Is
| DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE ANY GROUND
| Tor the judiciary to declare that the prohibition
| by Kansas of the manufacture or sale within
her limits of Intoxicating liquors TOR general use
| there as beverage is not fairly adapted to the
| end of protecting the community against the
| evils which confessedlv result from the excess
i i've use of ardent spirits. There is here no JUS
| LITIGATION for holding that the state, under the
guise of police regulations, is aiming to deprive
| this citizen of his constitutional rights; for we
\ knowledge of all. that the public health, the
| public morals and the public safety may be en-
| dangered by the general use of intoxicating
| drinks. Nor can ignore the fact, established
|
| disorder pauperism and crime prevalent in the
| country are in large measure directly traceable
| to this evil If, therefore, state deems the alb
| solute prohibition of the manufacture and sale
| within her limits of Intoxicating liquors
| for other than medical. scientific and
| manufacturing purposes 20 be necessary to the
| peace and dignity of society. the courts cannot,
| without usurpng legislative functions, override
the will of the people as thus expressed by their
| chosen representatives 1t is fundamental
| principle in our institutions. Indispensable to
| the preservation of public liberty, that one OF
| these departments of government shall not
! usurp powers committed by the constitution to
| another department. And so. If in the judy
| ment of the legislature the manufacture of in
| toXicating liquors for the makers own use as
| beverage would tend TO cripple, if not to defeat
| her efforts to guard the community against the
evils attending the excessive use of such liquors,
| it is not for the courts. upon their views as to
| what is best and safest for the community, to
| disregard the legislative determination of that
| question. So far from such regulation being
inappropriate to the general end sought to be
l
| the entire scheme of prohibition. as
embodied in the constitution and laws
OF Kansas, might fail if the right
| liquors for his own use as beverage were recog
| niZed. Such a right does not inhere in citizen
| ship Nor can it be said that the government in
! terferes with or impairs any ones constitutional
| rights of liberty or of property when it deter
| mines that the manufacture and sale of intoXi-
| eating drinks for general or individual use
beverage may become hurtful to society
| and to every member of it. and is therefore
| business in which no one can lawfully engage.
| This conclusion Is unavoidable unless the four
| teenth amendment of the constitution takes
| from the states of the Union those powers of
police that were reserved at the time the orig
| inal constitution was adopted. But this court
has declared. upon full consideration tin Bar
bier vs.. Connolly. 113 U. s.. 81 that the four
teenth amendment had no such effect.
THE PROPERTY OBJECTION.
With reference to the assertion that the
| prohibition of the manufacture and safe of
| liquor deprives liquor dealers of their prop
| erty without due process of law, the court
| says:
| All property under our form of government is
| subject to the obligation that it shall not be
used as to injuriously affect :he rights of the
| community and thereby become a nuisance
! The State of Kansas had a right to prohibit the
liquor traffic. 1t did not thereby take away the
property Of f., the brewers. 1t simply SIM abated
| its owners. They are only prohibited from using
it for specific purpose which the legislature de-
clared to be injurious TO the community. For
| the reasons stated, we are of the opinion that
| Mugler, the plaintiff in error. has not been de-
| MED by the judgments of the supreme court of
| Kansas any right, privilege or immunity Sc
| cured to him by the constitution of the United
4 States. and its Judgment in each Is accord
| ingly affirmed. We are also of the opinion that
| the circuit court of the United States erred in
| dismissing the bill of the state in her suit
| against Ziebold and Hageln. The decree in
| that case is reversed and the cause remanded.
| with directions to enter decree granting to the
| state such relief as the act of March z 1885,
authorizes
| A decision was rendered in the virginia